|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) .
I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget.
|
On May 25 2019 12:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) . I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget.
It's a bit hyperbolic for impact and briefness but we can hash that out when you come back for it.
|
On May 25 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it. So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific.
Well, I'd say that the problem is game theory more than anything. Whatever new system is put in place has to be robust against being exploited. Otherwise it just collapses. And history has taught us that there will always be plenty of assholes willing to exploit any system for personal gain.
So in that sense, daunt is absolutely right that either the system has to be robust against it (and nebuchad's outline doesn't sound like it is), or you need to have dealt with all current and future assholes *somehow*.
|
On May 25 2019 18:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it. So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific. Well, I'd say that the problem is game theory more than anything. Whatever new system is put in place has to be robust against being exploited. Otherwise it just collapses. And history has taught us that there will always be plenty of assholes willing to exploit any system for personal gain. So in that sense, daunt is absolutely right that either the system has to be robust against it (and nebuchad's outline doesn't sound like it is), or you need to have dealt with all current and future assholes *somehow*.
I can't imagine a more robust system than one in which there is an expectation and an infrastructure for the entirety (granted nothing is 100%) of society to hold one another accountable with a restorative (rather than retributive) justice system. Certainly more robust than the mess we have now from my perspective.
|
On May 25 2019 18:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 18:13 Acrofales wrote:On May 25 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it. So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific. Well, I'd say that the problem is game theory more than anything. Whatever new system is put in place has to be robust against being exploited. Otherwise it just collapses. And history has taught us that there will always be plenty of assholes willing to exploit any system for personal gain. So in that sense, daunt is absolutely right that either the system has to be robust against it (and nebuchad's outline doesn't sound like it is), or you need to have dealt with all current and future assholes *somehow*. I can't imagine a more robust system than one in which there is an expectation and an infrastructure for the entirety (granted nothing is 100%) of society to hold one another accountable with a restorative (rather than retributive) justice system. Certainly more robust than the mess we have now from my perspective.
Maybe it needs more fleshing out. I suspect you actually have thought through a lot of the actual issues, whereas nebuchad's ideas are still at the "and then we will have world harmony" stage.
I was literally only going off the "democratize wealth". Which sounds great, but... well, who incentivizes the creation of new business? That's my main gripe with socialism. But there's also the problem of the black market, which is present in every system where the government controls the market. My experience in places like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina and Cuba has been that eventually all the nice things are *only* available on the black market (because the rewards are far greater than on the regular market and supply is far too small for the demand). Leaving the regular market for only the most basic of necessities. And where there's a black market, there's people making money off it, which is contrary to the principal of democratizing wealth.
|
On May 25 2019 18:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 18:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 18:13 Acrofales wrote:On May 25 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing.
Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it. So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific. Well, I'd say that the problem is game theory more than anything. Whatever new system is put in place has to be robust against being exploited. Otherwise it just collapses. And history has taught us that there will always be plenty of assholes willing to exploit any system for personal gain. So in that sense, daunt is absolutely right that either the system has to be robust against it (and nebuchad's outline doesn't sound like it is), or you need to have dealt with all current and future assholes *somehow*. I can't imagine a more robust system than one in which there is an expectation and an infrastructure for the entirety (granted nothing is 100%) of society to hold one another accountable with a restorative (rather than retributive) justice system. Certainly more robust than the mess we have now from my perspective. Maybe it needs more fleshing out. I suspect you actually have thought through a lot of the actual issues, whereas nebuchad's ideas are still at the "and then we will have world harmony" stage. I was literally only going off the "democratize wealth". Which sounds great, but... well, who incentivizes the creation of new business? That's my main gripe with socialism. But there's also the problem of the black market, which is present in every system where the government controls the market. My experience in places like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina and Cuba has been that eventually all the nice things are *only* available on the black market (because the rewards are far greater than on the regular market and supply is far too small for the demand). Leaving the regular market for only the most basic of necessities. And where there's a black market, there's people making money off it, which is contrary to the principal of democratizing wealth.
In my opinion, a really good start would be massive inheritance taxes. You don't really impact the generation of wealth, but you prevent the creation of a hereditary aristocracy that owns everything. Do something like first 10 million free, then slowly rising taxes until you reach 90% on everything above 20 million. This still allows people to give their children a really nice life, probably leaving them more than a lot of people earn in their lifetime, in addition to all the advantages of being born in a rich family already gives. But it also means that money flows back to the people.
|
On May 25 2019 18:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 18:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 18:13 Acrofales wrote:On May 25 2019 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing.
Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it. So the problem isn't the system it's your perception of immutable human characteristics which have to be very emotionally and anecdotally based rather than scientific. Well, I'd say that the problem is game theory more than anything. Whatever new system is put in place has to be robust against being exploited. Otherwise it just collapses. And history has taught us that there will always be plenty of assholes willing to exploit any system for personal gain. So in that sense, daunt is absolutely right that either the system has to be robust against it (and nebuchad's outline doesn't sound like it is), or you need to have dealt with all current and future assholes *somehow*. I can't imagine a more robust system than one in which there is an expectation and an infrastructure for the entirety (granted nothing is 100%) of society to hold one another accountable with a restorative (rather than retributive) justice system. Certainly more robust than the mess we have now from my perspective. Maybe it needs more fleshing out. I suspect you actually have thought through a lot of the actual issues, whereas nebuchad's ideas are still at the "and then we will have world harmony" stage. I was literally only going off the "democratize wealth". Which sounds great, but... well, who incentivizes the creation of new business? That's my main gripe with socialism. But there's also the problem of the black market, which is present in every system where the government controls the market. My experience in places like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina and Cuba has been that eventually all the nice things are *only* available on the black market (because the rewards are far greater than on the regular market and supply is far too small for the demand). Leaving the regular market for only the most basic of necessities. And where there's a black market, there's people making money off it, which is contrary to the principal of democratizing wealth.
I can't speak to Neb's reading and so forth but there reams and reams of readings, discussions, and so on. This is the realm of socialist discourse. The fears most people have of socialism are based in a desire for people to fill their pitcher with the knowledge of socialism and Freire and the thinkers I tend to agree with suggest that doesn't work (and would to the degree necessary say that some of those attempts you mention demonstrate why).
If someone reads an exhaustive amount of socialist/communist literature and having displayed/demonstrated they comprehended the overarching themes and strategies and concludes socialism/communism isn't viable or whatever that's one thing but that's pretty much never the case. Someone reads a critique of Marx and presumes to know all socialist/communist theory is flawed based on their remarkably limited understanding.
A lot of critiques of socialist/communist theory read like someone who has only read game reviews critiquing a game they haven't played.
EDIT: This isn't unique to any particular political bend either, I run into plenty of socialists that know nothing about the work the Black liberation movement (or really any Marxist socialists outside of Europe) did to advance not just Marxist theory, but play out various lines of thinking regarding how to gain liberation and implement systems of accountability that address those that want to operate outside of the social agreement.
|
On May 25 2019 11:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 25 2019 10:31 Nebuchad wrote:On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:
Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? I'd like to answer this specific point because why not. No I don't think that, actually, because I'm not a tankie. I don't think that we should have more government, I think we should have more democratic control. Those aren't the same thing. Since you like freedom, here's a question for you: if the people in your system work for a capitalist boss, that runs his enterprise for profit and is incentivized to put their livelihood at risk if that's more profitable than not doing it, and the people in my system work for themselves (not the state, themselves) as they control the means of production of their labor, where are we maximizing freedom? The answer is that you can only truly work for yourself in a capitalist system that allows for free enterprise. If the system that I describe, that you think is impossible, was instead possible, would you agree that it maximizes freedom of individuals, and would you as a result be in favor of it? Your system necessarily involves massive government intervention that would deprive certain persons of their rights to free enterprise by redistributing their property rights to other persons. There is no freedom in that. Your system is a logical impossibility. However, I’m all ears if you disagree. Absolutely it would entail depriving the capitalist class of their property rights, that's certainly true. We're not giving them to other people though, we're just going to have democratic control. I have acknowledged that you think this is impossible, but that's not the question I asked. I asked if you think, provided that it would be possible, it would maximize freedom, and if you would as a result be in favor of it. In a hypothetical, completely unrealistic world in which we have cured numerous deficiencies of human character thereby allowing such a system to work, then yes, I'd be in favor of it.
Hey, that's already interesting, I didn't think you would. It makes me curious how many conservatives support hierarchies because they think they are necessary vs how many support hierarchies because they think they are good. My impression was that there was more of the latter, but come to think of it this impression isn't based on much.
I only have one follow up then: I'm going to compare your attitude here with your attitude when it comes to government. You also recognize government as restricting freedom, but a necessary evil because of human character (I'm paraphrasing). But in response to that you're trying to have as little government as possible. Wouldn't it make sense, if capitalism is similarly a societal structure that has to exist because human character is flawed, to in the same way work to have a little of it as possible?
From where I stand it appears there's an inconsistency there: on one side, government restricts freedom but is necessary => support government but small government. On the other, capitalim restricts freedom but is necessary => support capitalism and be a massive capitalist?
(I plan to answer your post Acro, I don't have a lot of time right now sorry)
|
On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) .
I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget.
Edit: Alright. Let's do this. Apologies for double dutching into the middle of convos.
The drinkable water in Chicago is already iffy. I don't drink from the faucet and I presume not many others do as well. Probably why it's free. So that is the first barrier that will be overcome as people figure that charcoal filtration system out and lug it around with them. We have the Great Lakes to fall back on and will probably dry them out within the first 100-200 years of your post-climatic apocalypse. I'm pretty sure there will be some Canadian imports as well into the Northern states.
You'd be surprised how much pride people take in public property in some areas. They just don't start squatting or taking over homes and buildings because the climate changed and society collapsed. Believe it or not, there is still decency among the common folks. And even if the laws/rules were to change, there would still be a sense of what is and isn't allowed behavior. Some people will be more brazen to act on their impulses, but there will be some kind of unspoken order to things.
The places I've lived can handle the growth of people. Like you said, the QoL won't be high, but they can handle it. The north and south of Japan are sparsely populated, will be more people moving there to increase space between each other. Illinois is also sparse so expect a spread out of people into the lower portion of the state and possibly the north. Kansas City is sparse as well and people won't have to move from the city proper. There's a lot of abandoned buildings and space for people to live. So that isn't an issue. The QoL is the issue, and I don't have an answer for that one. You'll have to do more, with less.
All in all, if there is a way, and there will be, to keep public works functioning, people will not become your worst fears. If we can stop the majority of places from becoming Flint, then we'll be in decent enough shape. The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change.
|
On May 25 2019 22:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 06:03 Artisreal wrote:
No. There is zero obligation connected with stating that the current (police) system in the US is not capable of treating people fairly. There's also ample evidence to make the argument compelling that it's beyond reform (tried and failed).
What else than a complete (revolutionary) overhaul is an option here?
The status quo isn't an option, and nobody but GH ever presented anything resembling an idea - as far as my memory holds - of how to properly adress the issue. Some might say there isn't (enough of) an issue in the first place - though tbh this is laughable. To me it seems that his position, police being beyond reform, is share or accepted by some, but a different conclusion from it having to be removed, is drawn from the judgement of its current state.
It's ridiculous to assume that he's obligated to present the solution to this problem, just to get the conversation started or even people to accept, that the status quo is a severe problem for many citizens. You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) . I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget. Edit: Alright. Let's do this. Apologies for double dutching into the middle of convos. The drinkable water in Chicago is already iffy. I don't drink from the faucet and I presume not many others do as well. Probably why it's free. So that is the first barrier that will be overcome as people figure that charcoal filtration system out and lug it around with them. We have the Great Lakes to fall back on and will probably dry them out within the first 100-200 years of your post-climatic apocalypse. I'm pretty sure there will be some Canadian imports as well into the Northern states. You'd be surprised how much pride people take in public property in some areas. They just don't start squatting or taking over homes and buildings because the climate changed and society collapsed. Believe it or not, there is still decency among the common folks. And even if the laws/rules were to change, there would still be a sense of what is and isn't allowed behavior. Some people will be more brazen to act on their impulses, but there will be some kind of unspoken order to things. The places I've lived can handle the growth of people. Like you said, the QoL won't be high, but they can handle it. The north and south of Japan are sparsely populated, will be more people moving there to increase space between each other. Illinois is also sparse so expect a spread out of people into the lower portion of the state and possibly the north. Kansas City is sparse as well and people won't have to move from the city proper. There's a lot of abandoned buildings and space for people to live. So that isn't an issue. The QoL is the issue, and I don't have an answer for that one. You'll have to do more, with less. All in all, if there is a way, and there will be, to keep public works functioning, people will not become your worst fears. If we can stop the majority of places from becoming Flint, then we'll be in decent enough shape. The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change.
I appreciate your engagement but I advise you look into some things.
Let's start with water. It's probably worse than you think.
By 2025, it is estimated that 66% of the world will live in water-stressed areas according to the World Resources Institute. We’re not just talking the usual headliners of California, North India (whose groundwater loss can be seen from space) or the Arabian Peninsula either, but a worldwide mismatch that will see a 40% gap between demand and supply emerge over the next 15 years
www.killik.com
Which is why oligarchs have been investing in securing resources like water rights.
The explosive growth of three private water utility companies raises fears that mankind may be losing control of its most vital resource to a handful of monopolistic corporations. In Europe and North America, analysts predict that within the next 15 years these companies will control 65 percent to 75 percent of what are now public waterworks.
publicintegrity.org
So those public resources aren't going to continue to be public. Also the lakes are already drying up faster than we expected.
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The Great Lakes share a surprising connection with Wisconsin's small lakes and aquifers — their water levels all rise and fall on a 13-year cycle, according to a new study. But that cycle is now mysteriously out of whack, researchers have found.
"The last two decades have been kind of exceptional," said Carl Watras, a climate scientist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Water levels have been declining since 1998, Watras told Live Science. "Our lakes have never been lower than they are."
The research was published Jan. 21 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
According to 70 years of lake and aquifer records from northern Wisconsin, the states' small lakes usually rise and fall on a regular cycle — about six years up, and six years down. But since 1998, there has been only one brief uptick in levels, in 2002 through 2003).
Both the normal 13-year cycle and unusual recent downward trend are mirrored in the world's biggest freshwater water body, the linked Great Lakes of Michigan and Huron, Watras said.
www.scientificamerican.comSo if you win the fight for Chicago's access to the lake water, the oligarchs might just move to Wisconsin and drain your lakes from there. There's a lot to this upcoming conflict and the oligarchs have been studying and preparing for decades. There's the mass migrations driven by major metros becoming uninhabitable for a variety of reasons In Japan, sea-level rise of 3.3 feet (1 meter) could put as many as 4.1 million more people at risk of flooding, by inundating more than 900 square miles (2,339 square kilometers) of land in major Japanese cities www.climatehotmap.orgThere's the heat, power shortages, food shortages, fuel shortages, infrastructure (that's already dilapidated) breaking down, on and on. I appreciate your optimism and faith in the human spirit but we're heading for social collapse on a scale your response doesn't seem to appreciate. As to your faith that The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. Isn't coming true and it's already too late for millions of people who are already suffering. The other problem is that the way climate change works the generation experiencing the consequences are powerless to change them. The people who need to have that urgency are the oligarchs of today that would have a heart attack from laughing in your face too hard before they changed their way of life. I don't mean to be harsh but I feel like people have been so wrapped up in the Mueller kabuki they haven't noticed the increasingly alarming data we've gotten on climate change over the last couple years. Capetown South Africa just narrowly averted Day Zero and is already heading back towards it when the next drought hits. Meanwhile the impoverished and marginalized live a life constantly on the verge of Day Zero whenever the oligarchs choose to cut off the taps. Cape Town’s multi-pronged effort to stave off Day Zero succeeded. Still, the challenges to achieving water security persist. Although dam levels are above the lows experienced during the drought, they remain below pre-drought years and currently stand at 50 percent of capacity. Meanwhile, daily water use for the city has crept higher over the past year.
Furthermore, disparities in access to water in Cape Town continue to be related to extreme economic inequality, which generally runs along the racial lines established during South Africa’s colonial and apartheid eras. For a large proportion of Cape Town’s poor citizens, whose only normal access to water is a communal tap, Day Zero remains a constant reality. Combine this with a complex political climate and historical distrust of state policies, and it is easy to understand that a sustained unified effort to conserve water is fraught with tension. Unsurprisingly, it's those that are most vulnerable which suffer the consequences of poor planning. Cape Town is making a longer-term effort to diversify its water resources, but that too is prompting concerns. Projects to desalinate ocean water and tap the aquifer beneath the city have proven far more expensive than initially thought, and have also faced questions about their environmental impacts on local ecosystems and overall sustainability. An increase in private wells drilled by wealthier households has added pressure to the future availability of this source. Although plans for both desalination and groundwater extraction are progressing, neither alone will solve Cape Town’s water issues.
For now, the city and its residents are still enduring moderate drought conditions. Urban water restrictions remain in place, although less strict than before, and the legacy of the drought can still be seen all around Cape Town. Many businesses continue to remind customers to restrict their usage in signs taped to bathroom mirrors and above toilets. grist.org
|
On May 25 2019 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 22:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:On May 25 2019 07:30 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
You're being silly. You can't just throw mud from your moral high ground and expect to be rewarded for your contribution to the enviorment. GH isn't presenting an idea, this is the precise point most people arguing with him have about "abolishing the police". Hes asking for mass murder and the burning down of all civilization because the status quo is less then ideal. This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo. Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care. I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) . I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget. Edit: Alright. Let's do this. Apologies for double dutching into the middle of convos. The drinkable water in Chicago is already iffy. I don't drink from the faucet and I presume not many others do as well. Probably why it's free. So that is the first barrier that will be overcome as people figure that charcoal filtration system out and lug it around with them. We have the Great Lakes to fall back on and will probably dry them out within the first 100-200 years of your post-climatic apocalypse. I'm pretty sure there will be some Canadian imports as well into the Northern states. You'd be surprised how much pride people take in public property in some areas. They just don't start squatting or taking over homes and buildings because the climate changed and society collapsed. Believe it or not, there is still decency among the common folks. And even if the laws/rules were to change, there would still be a sense of what is and isn't allowed behavior. Some people will be more brazen to act on their impulses, but there will be some kind of unspoken order to things. The places I've lived can handle the growth of people. Like you said, the QoL won't be high, but they can handle it. The north and south of Japan are sparsely populated, will be more people moving there to increase space between each other. Illinois is also sparse so expect a spread out of people into the lower portion of the state and possibly the north. Kansas City is sparse as well and people won't have to move from the city proper. There's a lot of abandoned buildings and space for people to live. So that isn't an issue. The QoL is the issue, and I don't have an answer for that one. You'll have to do more, with less. All in all, if there is a way, and there will be, to keep public works functioning, people will not become your worst fears. If we can stop the majority of places from becoming Flint, then we'll be in decent enough shape. The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. I appreciate your engagement but I advise you look into some things. Let's start with water. It's probably worse than you think. Show nested quote +By 2025, it is estimated that 66% of the world will live in water-stressed areas according to the World Resources Institute. We’re not just talking the usual headliners of California, North India (whose groundwater loss can be seen from space) or the Arabian Peninsula either, but a worldwide mismatch that will see a 40% gap between demand and supply emerge over the next 15 years www.killik.comWhich is why oligarchs have been investing in securing resources like water rights. Show nested quote +The explosive growth of three private water utility companies raises fears that mankind may be losing control of its most vital resource to a handful of monopolistic corporations. In Europe and North America, analysts predict that within the next 15 years these companies will control 65 percent to 75 percent of what are now public waterworks. publicintegrity.orgSo those public resources aren't going to continue to be public. Also the lakes are already drying up faster than we expected. + Show Spoiler +The Great Lakes share a surprising connection with Wisconsin's small lakes and aquifers — their water levels all rise and fall on a 13-year cycle, according to a new study. But that cycle is now mysteriously out of whack, researchers have found.
"The last two decades have been kind of exceptional," said Carl Watras, a climate scientist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Water levels have been declining since 1998, Watras told Live Science. "Our lakes have never been lower than they are."
The research was published Jan. 21 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
According to 70 years of lake and aquifer records from northern Wisconsin, the states' small lakes usually rise and fall on a regular cycle — about six years up, and six years down. But since 1998, there has been only one brief uptick in levels, in 2002 through 2003).
Both the normal 13-year cycle and unusual recent downward trend are mirrored in the world's biggest freshwater water body, the linked Great Lakes of Michigan and Huron, Watras said.
www.scientificamerican.comSo if you win the fight for Chicago's access to the lake water, the oligarchs might just move to Wisconsin and drain your lakes from there. There's a lot to this upcoming conflict and the oligarchs have been studying and preparing for decades. There's the mass migrations driven by major metros becoming uninhabitable for a variety of reasons Show nested quote +In Japan, sea-level rise of 3.3 feet (1 meter) could put as many as 4.1 million more people at risk of flooding, by inundating more than 900 square miles (2,339 square kilometers) of land in major Japanese cities www.climatehotmap.orgThere's the heat, power shortages, food shortages, fuel shortages, infrastructure (that's already dilapidated) breaking down, on and on. I appreciate your optimism and faith in the human spirit but we're heading for social collapse on a scale your response doesn't seem to appreciate. As to your faith that Show nested quote +The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. Isn't coming true and it's already too late for millions of people who are already suffering. The other problem is that the way climate change works the generation experiencing the consequences are powerless to change them. The people who need to have that urgency are the oligarchs of today that would have a heart attack from laughing in your face too hard before they changed their way of life. I don't mean to be harsh but I feel like people have been so wrapped up in the Mueller kabuki they haven't noticed the increasingly alarming data we've gotten on climate change over the last couple years.
Thank you for the source material. I will look further into that. As I've stated, there are areas that can be inhabited by the metro displacement that will occur. The US is fucking enormous, so I'm not worried about congestion in the major areas as the people too poor to live there, will simply move away. They don't have a choice but to vacate the area. The immigration thing can't be helped as people from India and other countries move to where they can try to live.
It is a dark future ahead. I will agree that much. I honestly just don't see it being as dire as you. I will agree that it will get far, far worse than we imagine and are prepared for. Hence why I also agreed with KwarK to get what you can. But we can't sacrifice people along the way.
Also to your last point. I didn't mean it is happening now. But that it will in time. I'm looking ahead because the right now is fucked.
|
On May 25 2019 23:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 22:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:On May 25 2019 07:34 Artisreal wrote:
[quote]
This only shows that you have no interest (or not enough) in changing the status quo.
Possibly because you're not affected enough by the injustice to feel the need to take action. Or think about what to do. Or even care.
I understand and can relate. Though that doesn't make GH's position that the police (in its current form) has to be abolished wrong. I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo. Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) . I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget. Edit: Alright. Let's do this. Apologies for double dutching into the middle of convos. The drinkable water in Chicago is already iffy. I don't drink from the faucet and I presume not many others do as well. Probably why it's free. So that is the first barrier that will be overcome as people figure that charcoal filtration system out and lug it around with them. We have the Great Lakes to fall back on and will probably dry them out within the first 100-200 years of your post-climatic apocalypse. I'm pretty sure there will be some Canadian imports as well into the Northern states. You'd be surprised how much pride people take in public property in some areas. They just don't start squatting or taking over homes and buildings because the climate changed and society collapsed. Believe it or not, there is still decency among the common folks. And even if the laws/rules were to change, there would still be a sense of what is and isn't allowed behavior. Some people will be more brazen to act on their impulses, but there will be some kind of unspoken order to things. The places I've lived can handle the growth of people. Like you said, the QoL won't be high, but they can handle it. The north and south of Japan are sparsely populated, will be more people moving there to increase space between each other. Illinois is also sparse so expect a spread out of people into the lower portion of the state and possibly the north. Kansas City is sparse as well and people won't have to move from the city proper. There's a lot of abandoned buildings and space for people to live. So that isn't an issue. The QoL is the issue, and I don't have an answer for that one. You'll have to do more, with less. All in all, if there is a way, and there will be, to keep public works functioning, people will not become your worst fears. If we can stop the majority of places from becoming Flint, then we'll be in decent enough shape. The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. I appreciate your engagement but I advise you look into some things. Let's start with water. It's probably worse than you think. By 2025, it is estimated that 66% of the world will live in water-stressed areas according to the World Resources Institute. We’re not just talking the usual headliners of California, North India (whose groundwater loss can be seen from space) or the Arabian Peninsula either, but a worldwide mismatch that will see a 40% gap between demand and supply emerge over the next 15 years www.killik.comWhich is why oligarchs have been investing in securing resources like water rights. The explosive growth of three private water utility companies raises fears that mankind may be losing control of its most vital resource to a handful of monopolistic corporations. In Europe and North America, analysts predict that within the next 15 years these companies will control 65 percent to 75 percent of what are now public waterworks. publicintegrity.orgSo those public resources aren't going to continue to be public. Also the lakes are already drying up faster than we expected. + Show Spoiler +The Great Lakes share a surprising connection with Wisconsin's small lakes and aquifers — their water levels all rise and fall on a 13-year cycle, according to a new study. But that cycle is now mysteriously out of whack, researchers have found.
"The last two decades have been kind of exceptional," said Carl Watras, a climate scientist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Water levels have been declining since 1998, Watras told Live Science. "Our lakes have never been lower than they are."
The research was published Jan. 21 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
According to 70 years of lake and aquifer records from northern Wisconsin, the states' small lakes usually rise and fall on a regular cycle — about six years up, and six years down. But since 1998, there has been only one brief uptick in levels, in 2002 through 2003).
Both the normal 13-year cycle and unusual recent downward trend are mirrored in the world's biggest freshwater water body, the linked Great Lakes of Michigan and Huron, Watras said.
www.scientificamerican.comSo if you win the fight for Chicago's access to the lake water, the oligarchs might just move to Wisconsin and drain your lakes from there. There's a lot to this upcoming conflict and the oligarchs have been studying and preparing for decades. There's the mass migrations driven by major metros becoming uninhabitable for a variety of reasons In Japan, sea-level rise of 3.3 feet (1 meter) could put as many as 4.1 million more people at risk of flooding, by inundating more than 900 square miles (2,339 square kilometers) of land in major Japanese cities www.climatehotmap.orgThere's the heat, power shortages, food shortages, fuel shortages, infrastructure (that's already dilapidated) breaking down, on and on. I appreciate your optimism and faith in the human spirit but we're heading for social collapse on a scale your response doesn't seem to appreciate. As to your faith that The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. Isn't coming true and it's already too late for millions of people who are already suffering. The other problem is that the way climate change works the generation experiencing the consequences are powerless to change them. The people who need to have that urgency are the oligarchs of today that would have a heart attack from laughing in your face too hard before they changed their way of life. I don't mean to be harsh but I feel like people have been so wrapped up in the Mueller kabuki they haven't noticed the increasingly alarming data we've gotten on climate change over the last couple years. Thank you for the source material. I will look further into that. As I've stated, there are areas that can be inhabited by the metro displacement that will occur. The US is fucking enormous, so I'm not worried about congestion in the major areas as the people too poor to live there, will simply move away. They don't have a choice but to vacate the area. The immigration thing can't be helped as people from India and other countries move to where they can try to live. It is a dark future ahead. I will agree that much. I honestly just don't see it being as dire as you. I will agree that it will get far, far worse than we imagine and are prepared for. Hence why I also agreed with KwarK to get what you can. But we can't sacrifice people along the way. Also to your last point. I didn't mean it is happening now. But that it will in time. I'm looking ahead because the right now is fucked.
I added an example from South Africa of what the early stages look like, but we can go to the capital of Mongolia to learn it's not as simple as moving to empty land. People from the country actually have to move to the city to survive even though the air is literally killing them, but slower than the cold and starvation so they accept the trade. This also dumps obscene levels of carbon into the atmosphere accelerating the problem.
Mongolia’s pollution problem is a more severe version of one playing out around the world. From the United States and Germany to India and China, air pollution cuts short an estimated 7 million lives globally every year. Coal is one of the major causes of dirty air—and of climate change.
In Mongolia, at least for now, coal is essential to surviving the brutal winters. But the toll it takes is steep.
“I no longer know what a healthy lung sounds like”
www.nationalgeographic.com
The major problem I see with your position (besides what I see as unfounded optimism and faith in existing governments) is thinking there's a way for you to amass resources in the capitalistic system that doesn't sacrifice people on the way.
|
On May 25 2019 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 23:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 22:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 07:44 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
I don't have enough interest in changing the status quo when the status quo is full supermarkets, new music on the radio, and football coming in the fall. When the other choice is given is hundreds of millions of people dying on an altar of "maybe we'll figure out something better?" I hope you would chose the status quo.
Then again some french people think their revolution was a positive event so go ahead and advocate for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Thats your posision you have to defend. Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) . I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget. Edit: Alright. Let's do this. Apologies for double dutching into the middle of convos. The drinkable water in Chicago is already iffy. I don't drink from the faucet and I presume not many others do as well. Probably why it's free. So that is the first barrier that will be overcome as people figure that charcoal filtration system out and lug it around with them. We have the Great Lakes to fall back on and will probably dry them out within the first 100-200 years of your post-climatic apocalypse. I'm pretty sure there will be some Canadian imports as well into the Northern states. You'd be surprised how much pride people take in public property in some areas. They just don't start squatting or taking over homes and buildings because the climate changed and society collapsed. Believe it or not, there is still decency among the common folks. And even if the laws/rules were to change, there would still be a sense of what is and isn't allowed behavior. Some people will be more brazen to act on their impulses, but there will be some kind of unspoken order to things. The places I've lived can handle the growth of people. Like you said, the QoL won't be high, but they can handle it. The north and south of Japan are sparsely populated, will be more people moving there to increase space between each other. Illinois is also sparse so expect a spread out of people into the lower portion of the state and possibly the north. Kansas City is sparse as well and people won't have to move from the city proper. There's a lot of abandoned buildings and space for people to live. So that isn't an issue. The QoL is the issue, and I don't have an answer for that one. You'll have to do more, with less. All in all, if there is a way, and there will be, to keep public works functioning, people will not become your worst fears. If we can stop the majority of places from becoming Flint, then we'll be in decent enough shape. The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. I appreciate your engagement but I advise you look into some things. Let's start with water. It's probably worse than you think. By 2025, it is estimated that 66% of the world will live in water-stressed areas according to the World Resources Institute. We’re not just talking the usual headliners of California, North India (whose groundwater loss can be seen from space) or the Arabian Peninsula either, but a worldwide mismatch that will see a 40% gap between demand and supply emerge over the next 15 years www.killik.comWhich is why oligarchs have been investing in securing resources like water rights. The explosive growth of three private water utility companies raises fears that mankind may be losing control of its most vital resource to a handful of monopolistic corporations. In Europe and North America, analysts predict that within the next 15 years these companies will control 65 percent to 75 percent of what are now public waterworks. publicintegrity.orgSo those public resources aren't going to continue to be public. Also the lakes are already drying up faster than we expected. + Show Spoiler +The Great Lakes share a surprising connection with Wisconsin's small lakes and aquifers — their water levels all rise and fall on a 13-year cycle, according to a new study. But that cycle is now mysteriously out of whack, researchers have found.
"The last two decades have been kind of exceptional," said Carl Watras, a climate scientist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Water levels have been declining since 1998, Watras told Live Science. "Our lakes have never been lower than they are."
The research was published Jan. 21 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
According to 70 years of lake and aquifer records from northern Wisconsin, the states' small lakes usually rise and fall on a regular cycle — about six years up, and six years down. But since 1998, there has been only one brief uptick in levels, in 2002 through 2003).
Both the normal 13-year cycle and unusual recent downward trend are mirrored in the world's biggest freshwater water body, the linked Great Lakes of Michigan and Huron, Watras said.
www.scientificamerican.comSo if you win the fight for Chicago's access to the lake water, the oligarchs might just move to Wisconsin and drain your lakes from there. There's a lot to this upcoming conflict and the oligarchs have been studying and preparing for decades. There's the mass migrations driven by major metros becoming uninhabitable for a variety of reasons In Japan, sea-level rise of 3.3 feet (1 meter) could put as many as 4.1 million more people at risk of flooding, by inundating more than 900 square miles (2,339 square kilometers) of land in major Japanese cities www.climatehotmap.orgThere's the heat, power shortages, food shortages, fuel shortages, infrastructure (that's already dilapidated) breaking down, on and on. I appreciate your optimism and faith in the human spirit but we're heading for social collapse on a scale your response doesn't seem to appreciate. As to your faith that The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. Isn't coming true and it's already too late for millions of people who are already suffering. The other problem is that the way climate change works the generation experiencing the consequences are powerless to change them. The people who need to have that urgency are the oligarchs of today that would have a heart attack from laughing in your face too hard before they changed their way of life. I don't mean to be harsh but I feel like people have been so wrapped up in the Mueller kabuki they haven't noticed the increasingly alarming data we've gotten on climate change over the last couple years. Thank you for the source material. I will look further into that. As I've stated, there are areas that can be inhabited by the metro displacement that will occur. The US is fucking enormous, so I'm not worried about congestion in the major areas as the people too poor to live there, will simply move away. They don't have a choice but to vacate the area. The immigration thing can't be helped as people from India and other countries move to where they can try to live. It is a dark future ahead. I will agree that much. I honestly just don't see it being as dire as you. I will agree that it will get far, far worse than we imagine and are prepared for. Hence why I also agreed with KwarK to get what you can. But we can't sacrifice people along the way. Also to your last point. I didn't mean it is happening now. But that it will in time. I'm looking ahead because the right now is fucked. I added an example from South Africa of what the early stages look like, but we can go to the capital of Mongolia to learn it's not as simple as moving to empty land. People from the country actually have to move to the city to survive even though the air is literally killing them, but slower than the cold and starvation so they accept the trade. This also dumps obscene levels of carbon into the atmosphere accelerating the problem. Show nested quote +Mongolia’s pollution problem is a more severe version of one playing out around the world. From the United States and Germany to India and China, air pollution cuts short an estimated 7 million lives globally every year. Coal is one of the major causes of dirty air—and of climate change.
In Mongolia, at least for now, coal is essential to surviving the brutal winters. But the toll it takes is steep.
“I no longer know what a healthy lung sounds like” www.nationalgeographic.comThe major problem I see with your position (besides what I see as unfounded optimism and faith in existing governments) is thinking there's a way for you to amass resources in the capitalistic system that doesn't sacrifice people on the way.
When I say sacrifice, I mean we don't leave them to die. People will die. But it can't be malicious. If there is a way, personally, to save lives, then we have a responsibility to do so. The 'faith' you think I have in the current governments is misplaced because I don't have any. Again, I'm looking forward. There is no fixing this without a, as you love to put it, 'revolution'. The form of which is TBD. I'm for a revolution in the way we as a society think and what we place value on/in. But a physical revolution will not work in today's climate, political and actual.
I'll flip through your links so it will be a moment before I'm able to respond. Thanks.
|
On May 25 2019 23:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 23:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 23:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 22:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 22:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2019 12:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 11:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 25 2019 09:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 25 2019 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Fair to group you in with Kwarks positions as well then? At the end of the day, 80% falls into the category whether they want to say so or not. I'm actively trying and have been long before Kwark made that statement, to gather all the resources and monetary wealth I can just because I know the shit is hitting the fan sooner rather than later. Did you move out of a large city? If not you don’t have a chance. Personally i bought some land in a country town 5 years ago.It’s paid off but i need 3 1/2 years until i get my long service payout from work so i can build.Time will tell if i left it all too late. I live in Chicago. Just left Kansas City and San Diego. I've also lived in Tokyo. Why do you ask? I think nettles invests so I presume he's aware there wont be any drinkable water in Chicago and most major metros unless you're part of the uber wealthy or belong to one of the corporate covens which has water allocations. Additionally city property will be worthless to those who can't personally (or through private employment/networking) secure it as there will be no public police force (besides what will basically be roving gangs). Also the dense populations of desperate people are generally unsafe and will be cesspools of disease, squalor, and violence. Incomes under ~$250k with millions of hard assets in major metros won't fare much if any better than the homeless people who are familiar with the life increasingly more of society will endure. Finally, you'll need to be largely self-sufficient in the post climate collapse world so land and a home away from society is pretty much a must for those outside of the aforementioned sycophantic groups. At least that's why I've taken similar actions anyway. None of the places you've lived will be able to support a fraction of the populations (at least not at a comparable quality of life) they do now in 50-100 years based on the best available science and political realities. EDIT: Just realized that sounded like an intro to an ep of "Doomsday Preppers" except it's not paranoid rantings, that's literally what the science says (granted I'm fudging the income and wealth numbers as that's largely unpredictable) . I applaud you setting these tenets forth. I'll respond in kind on the morrow, if that is fine with you. I'll bookmark this to make sure I don't forget. Edit: Alright. Let's do this. Apologies for double dutching into the middle of convos. The drinkable water in Chicago is already iffy. I don't drink from the faucet and I presume not many others do as well. Probably why it's free. So that is the first barrier that will be overcome as people figure that charcoal filtration system out and lug it around with them. We have the Great Lakes to fall back on and will probably dry them out within the first 100-200 years of your post-climatic apocalypse. I'm pretty sure there will be some Canadian imports as well into the Northern states. You'd be surprised how much pride people take in public property in some areas. They just don't start squatting or taking over homes and buildings because the climate changed and society collapsed. Believe it or not, there is still decency among the common folks. And even if the laws/rules were to change, there would still be a sense of what is and isn't allowed behavior. Some people will be more brazen to act on their impulses, but there will be some kind of unspoken order to things. The places I've lived can handle the growth of people. Like you said, the QoL won't be high, but they can handle it. The north and south of Japan are sparsely populated, will be more people moving there to increase space between each other. Illinois is also sparse so expect a spread out of people into the lower portion of the state and possibly the north. Kansas City is sparse as well and people won't have to move from the city proper. There's a lot of abandoned buildings and space for people to live. So that isn't an issue. The QoL is the issue, and I don't have an answer for that one. You'll have to do more, with less. All in all, if there is a way, and there will be, to keep public works functioning, people will not become your worst fears. If we can stop the majority of places from becoming Flint, then we'll be in decent enough shape. The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. I appreciate your engagement but I advise you look into some things. Let's start with water. It's probably worse than you think. By 2025, it is estimated that 66% of the world will live in water-stressed areas according to the World Resources Institute. We’re not just talking the usual headliners of California, North India (whose groundwater loss can be seen from space) or the Arabian Peninsula either, but a worldwide mismatch that will see a 40% gap between demand and supply emerge over the next 15 years www.killik.comWhich is why oligarchs have been investing in securing resources like water rights. The explosive growth of three private water utility companies raises fears that mankind may be losing control of its most vital resource to a handful of monopolistic corporations. In Europe and North America, analysts predict that within the next 15 years these companies will control 65 percent to 75 percent of what are now public waterworks. publicintegrity.orgSo those public resources aren't going to continue to be public. Also the lakes are already drying up faster than we expected. + Show Spoiler +The Great Lakes share a surprising connection with Wisconsin's small lakes and aquifers — their water levels all rise and fall on a 13-year cycle, according to a new study. But that cycle is now mysteriously out of whack, researchers have found.
"The last two decades have been kind of exceptional," said Carl Watras, a climate scientist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Water levels have been declining since 1998, Watras told Live Science. "Our lakes have never been lower than they are."
The research was published Jan. 21 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
According to 70 years of lake and aquifer records from northern Wisconsin, the states' small lakes usually rise and fall on a regular cycle — about six years up, and six years down. But since 1998, there has been only one brief uptick in levels, in 2002 through 2003).
Both the normal 13-year cycle and unusual recent downward trend are mirrored in the world's biggest freshwater water body, the linked Great Lakes of Michigan and Huron, Watras said.
www.scientificamerican.comSo if you win the fight for Chicago's access to the lake water, the oligarchs might just move to Wisconsin and drain your lakes from there. There's a lot to this upcoming conflict and the oligarchs have been studying and preparing for decades. There's the mass migrations driven by major metros becoming uninhabitable for a variety of reasons In Japan, sea-level rise of 3.3 feet (1 meter) could put as many as 4.1 million more people at risk of flooding, by inundating more than 900 square miles (2,339 square kilometers) of land in major Japanese cities www.climatehotmap.orgThere's the heat, power shortages, food shortages, fuel shortages, infrastructure (that's already dilapidated) breaking down, on and on. I appreciate your optimism and faith in the human spirit but we're heading for social collapse on a scale your response doesn't seem to appreciate. As to your faith that The urgency to change our living habits will rise and things will turn better. But it will be some time, death will be vast, and things are going to change. Isn't coming true and it's already too late for millions of people who are already suffering. The other problem is that the way climate change works the generation experiencing the consequences are powerless to change them. The people who need to have that urgency are the oligarchs of today that would have a heart attack from laughing in your face too hard before they changed their way of life. I don't mean to be harsh but I feel like people have been so wrapped up in the Mueller kabuki they haven't noticed the increasingly alarming data we've gotten on climate change over the last couple years. Thank you for the source material. I will look further into that. As I've stated, there are areas that can be inhabited by the metro displacement that will occur. The US is fucking enormous, so I'm not worried about congestion in the major areas as the people too poor to live there, will simply move away. They don't have a choice but to vacate the area. The immigration thing can't be helped as people from India and other countries move to where they can try to live. It is a dark future ahead. I will agree that much. I honestly just don't see it being as dire as you. I will agree that it will get far, far worse than we imagine and are prepared for. Hence why I also agreed with KwarK to get what you can. But we can't sacrifice people along the way. Also to your last point. I didn't mean it is happening now. But that it will in time. I'm looking ahead because the right now is fucked. I added an example from South Africa of what the early stages look like, but we can go to the capital of Mongolia to learn it's not as simple as moving to empty land. People from the country actually have to move to the city to survive even though the air is literally killing them, but slower than the cold and starvation so they accept the trade. This also dumps obscene levels of carbon into the atmosphere accelerating the problem. Mongolia’s pollution problem is a more severe version of one playing out around the world. From the United States and Germany to India and China, air pollution cuts short an estimated 7 million lives globally every year. Coal is one of the major causes of dirty air—and of climate change.
In Mongolia, at least for now, coal is essential to surviving the brutal winters. But the toll it takes is steep.
“I no longer know what a healthy lung sounds like” www.nationalgeographic.comThe major problem I see with your position (besides what I see as unfounded optimism and faith in existing governments) is thinking there's a way for you to amass resources in the capitalistic system that doesn't sacrifice people on the way. When I say sacrifice, I mean we don't leave them to die. People will die. But it can't be malicious. If there is a way, personally, to save lives, then we have a responsibility to do so. The 'faith' you think I have in the current governments is misplaced because I don't have any. Again, I'm looking forward. There is no fixing this without a, as you love to put it, 'revolution'. The form of which is TBD. I'm for a revolution in the way we as a society think and what we place value on/in. But a physical revolution will not work in today's climate, political and actual. I'll flip through your links so it will be a moment before I'm able to respond. Thanks.
You are literally leaving them to die though. You can argue you're not malicious (I may disagree), but we're leaving them to die while gathering resources nonetheless.
I don't know what you're looking forward at when you say
if there is a way, and there will be, to keep public works functioning
Unless you're suggesting we just have to wait till it's worse and the government has basically collapsed before revolution is viable or relying on governments to both keep the works public and functioning (with the assistance of locals). I'd mention as you did that we're not keeping them very functional as it is.
The idea is the sooner people stop calling it "Your revolution" and take responsibility for it themselves (or own the alternative) the sooner their concerns about it's vulnerabilities can be addressed.
|
|
|
United States42237 Posts
Trump on his relationship with Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.
This is why it is important for a President to not maintain active business interests while holding the office. Every previous President has understood that. Hell, even Trump claimed to understand that during the campaign when he pledged over and over to put his money into a blind trust. It's only after winning that he explained that his understanding of a blind trust was having his daughter do more of the day to day admin while he made the strategic decisions.
For the record, a blind trust is an investment trust that he doesn't control and doesn't know what is in it. The idea is that he cannot favour his financial interests if he doesn't know what they are. Giving your daughter her own checkbook on the condition that she runs her ideas through you is not a blind trust.
|
On May 26 2019 01:55 KwarK wrote:Trump on his relationship with Saudi Arabia Show nested quote +Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. This is why it is important for a President to not maintain active business interests while holding the office. Every previous President has understood that. Hell, even Trump claimed to understand that during the campaign when he pledged over and over to put his money into a blind trust. It's only after winning that he explained that his understanding of a blind trust was having his daughter do more of the day to day admin while he made the strategic decisions. For the record, a blind trust is an investment trust that he doesn't control and doesn't know what is in it. The idea is that he cannot favour his financial interests if he doesn't know what they are. Giving your daughter her own checkbook on the condition that she runs her ideas through you is not a blind trust.
You'd know better than most whether the UK had any luck stopping their government from selling arms to SA? I'm under no illusion that it matters which party is in the white house, supplying despots with arms is on brand for the US. I wasn't able to find out whether the US is unique in this or just the leader (when it comes to arming SA) though?
|
I'm sure we're unique in the volume we supply. But definitely not in supplying arms.
|
|
|
On May 26 2019 01:55 KwarK wrote:Trump on his relationship with Saudi Arabia Show nested quote +Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. This is why it is important for a President to not maintain active business interests while holding the office. Every previous President has understood that. Hell, even Trump claimed to understand that during the campaign when he pledged over and over to put his money into a blind trust. It's only after winning that he explained that his understanding of a blind trust was having his daughter do more of the day to day admin while he made the strategic decisions. For the record, a blind trust is an investment trust that he doesn't control and doesn't know what is in it. The idea is that he cannot favour his financial interests if he doesn't know what they are. Giving your daughter her own checkbook on the condition that she runs her ideas through you is not a blind trust. Indeed, behaviour like this is why there is the push to get his financial records. He consistently speaks and acts favourably towards those he has done business with, regardless of who they are. Saudi Arabia is notable though because of their past dealings with him and Kushner. Not to mention a Saudi-funded lobbyist just happened to book over 500 nights of stays at Trump's DC hotel in the months after the election and used giving veterans a trip to Washington as a cover story.
“It made all the sense in the world, when we found out that the Saudis had paid for it,” said Henry Garcia, a Navy veteran from San Antonio who went on three trips. He said the organizers never said anything about Saudi Arabia when they invited him.
He believed the trips were organized by other veterans, but that puzzled him, because this group spent money like no veterans group he had ever worked with. There were private hotel rooms, open bars, free dinners. Then, Garcia said, one of the organizers who had been drinking minibar champagne mentioned a Saudi prince.
“I said, ‘Oh, we were just used to give Trump money,’ ” Garcia said.
It's the same with people who donate to him and the Republican party. They mysteriously keep getting recommended by him for contracts, like this recent event involving him recommending a GOP donor get the contract for building his wall. The grift just never seems to end. For everything, there always seems to be an angle to either make Trump richer, or those around him richer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
